Displaying 20 results from an estimated 100 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] -O4 limitations in llvm/llvm-gcc-4.2 2.5?"
2011 Sep 02
1
[LLVMdev] does new EH require newer linker?
Is the new EH scheme completely compatible with the existing linker in Xcode 4.1?
I am finding that today's changes break the ability to link xplor-nih with dragonegg
under FSF gcc 4.6.2...
de-g++46 -c thread.cc -O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops -g -DX_MMAP_FLAGS=0 -DFORTRAN_INIT -fno-common -DDARWIN -D_REENTRANT -DNDEBUG -I/Users/howarth/xplor-nih-2.27/vmd/
2009 Jan 25
2
[LLVMdev] -O4 -fvisibility=hidden
After trying the recommended use of -O4 -fvisibility=hidden to
compile xplor-nih with full LTO optimizations, I discovered three
symbols become undefined...
llvm-gcc-4 -O4 -fvisibility=hidden -o xplor xplor.o \
\
-L. -lxplorCmd -lxplor -L/Users/howarth/xplor-nih-2.21/bin.Darwin_9_x86/ -lfft -lintVar -lvmd -lpy -lswigpy-xplor -ltclXplor -lswigtcl8-xplor -lnmrPot -lcommon -lmarvin \
2009 Jan 25
0
[LLVMdev] -O4 -fvisibility=hidden
Le 25 janv. 09 à 06:01, Jack Howarth a écrit :
> After trying the recommended use of -O4 -fvisibility=hidden to
> compile xplor-nih with full LTO optimizations, I discovered three
> symbols become undefined...
>
> llvm-gcc-4 -O4 -fvisibility=hidden -o xplor xplor.o \
> \
> -L. -lxplorCmd -lxplor -L/Users/howarth/xplor-nih-2.21/
> bin.Darwin_9_x86/ -lfft -lintVar
2009 Jan 25
2
[LLVMdev] -O4 -fvisibility=hidden
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 11:38:48AM +0100, Jean-Daniel Dupas wrote:
>
> Le 25 janv. 09 à 06:01, Jack Howarth a écrit :
>
> > After trying the recommended use of -O4 -fvisibility=hidden to
> > compile xplor-nih with full LTO optimizations, I discovered three
> > symbols become undefined...
> >
> > llvm-gcc-4 -O4 -fvisibility=hidden -o xplor xplor.o \
>
2009 Jan 23
0
[LLVMdev] llvm/llvm-gcc-4.2 and xplor-nih
I am happy to report that current llvm/llvm-gcc-4.2 svn
builds all of xplor-nih (a complex mix of c, c++ and fortran)
with -O3 -fPIC -msse4 -ffast-math. A single fortran file
exposes PR3376 which is triggered by -O3 -ffinite-math-only.
The resulting build of xplor-nih completely passes its testsuite
and compares very well to the same build against gcc trunk for
gcc 4.4 in terms of execution time.
2009 Jan 24
0
[LLVMdev] -O4 limitations in llvm/llvm-gcc-4.2 2.5?
Chris,
Thanks for the hint. Moving over the libLTO.dylib
from llvm 2.5 solved all of the linkage errors. I was
able to completely build xplor-nih at -O4 now. The
core xplor and xplor-tcl testsuite show no regressions.
I do get 7 testcases in the xplor-python testsuite
failing with bus errors now. The xplor-tcl and xplor-python
tests are all run by tcl and python respectively loading
their
2011 Sep 06
2
[LLVMdev] major dragonegg improvement
I'm not certain yet which commit in the last couple of days caused this,
but the current llvm/dragonegg svn shows a major improvement in the runtime
of the xplor-nih testsuite when xplor-nih is built with FSF gcc 4.6.1 and the
dragonegg plugin at -O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops. Previously the xplor-nih
testsuite always executed in ~40 sec but now it is coming it at 34.5 sec which
is about the
2011 Sep 06
0
[LLVMdev] major dragonegg improvement
Seems very likely to be related to Andy's SCEV-unroll-loops changes.
--Owen
On Sep 6, 2011, at 11:56 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> I'm not certain yet which commit in the last couple of days caused this,
> but the current llvm/dragonegg svn shows a major improvement in the runtime
> of the xplor-nih testsuite when xplor-nih is built with FSF gcc 4.6.1 and the
> dragonegg plugin
2011 Sep 06
1
[LLVMdev] major dragonegg improvement
Try -mllvm -disable-unroll-scev if you're curious.
There can be some luck involved. If you have the bitcode for the important function, I may be able to convert it into a test case to avoid regressing. I usually grab the unoptimized bitcode as follows: -emit-llvm -mllvm -disable-llvm-optzns -o module.bc
-Andy
On Sep 6, 2011, at 12:03 PM, Owen Anderson wrote:
> Seems very likely to be
2011 Apr 13
1
[LLVMdev] dragonegg vs xplor-nih
I was quite surprised to find that dragonegg svn can now compile all of
xplor-nih (which is a complex mix of c, c++ and fortran that is a regression
magnet for FSF gcc). The xplor-nih package was compiled at -O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops
for all three compilers. The xplor testsuite passed without regressions and benchmarked
as follows...
dragonegg svn with llvm 2.9 and FSF gcc 4.5.3svn
Total
2012 Apr 03
0
[LLVMdev] pb05 results for current llvm/dragonegg
Hi Jack,
> Attached are the Polyhedron 2005 benchmark results for current llvm/dragonegg svn
> on x86_64-apple-darwin11 built against Xcode 4.3.2 and FSF gcc 4.6.3.
thanks for the numbers. How does this compare to LLVM 3.0 - were there any
regressions?
Ciao, Duncan.
The benchmarks
> for -msse3 and -msse4 appear identical (at least for degg+optnz). This is fortunate
> since
2012 Apr 02
6
[LLVMdev] pb05 results for current llvm/dragonegg
Attached are the Polyhedron 2005 benchmark results for current llvm/dragonegg svn
on x86_64-apple-darwin11 built against Xcode 4.3.2 and FSF gcc 4.6.3. The benchmarks
for -msse3 and -msse4 appear identical (at least for degg+optnz). This is fortunate
since there seems to be a bug in -msse4 on 2.33 GHz (T7600) Intel Core 2 Duo Merom
(http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=12434).
2012 Apr 03
1
[LLVMdev] pb05 results for current llvm/dragonegg
Attached are the Polyhedron 2005 benchmark results for current llvm/dragonegg svn
on x86_64-apple-darwin11 built against Xcode 4.3.2 and FSF gcc 4.6.3. The benchmarks
for -msse3 and -msse4 appear identical (at least for degg+optnz). This is fortunate
since there seems to be a bug in -msse4 on 2.33 GHz (T7600) Intel Core 2 Duo Merom
(http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=12434). I've added two
2016 Jan 14
1
Antw: Test still failing in old CPUs
On 01/14/2016 02:23 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote:
>> """
>> ./test-driver: line 107: 25185 Illegal instruction "$@" > $log_file
> 2>&1
>> FAIL: celt/tests/test_unit_mathops
>> """
>
> The shell script most likely does not have the illegal instruction; a more
> useful report would be to run the thing under a
2012 Apr 03
0
[LLVMdev] pb05 results for current llvm/dragonegg
On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 08:57:51 -0400
Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 09:26:38AM +0200, Duncan Sands wrote:
> > Hi Jack,
> >
> >> Attached are the Polyhedron 2005 benchmark results for current
> >> llvm/dragonegg svn on x86_64-apple-darwin11 built against Xcode
> >> 4.3.2 and FSF gcc 4.6.3.
> >
>
2012 Apr 03
3
[LLVMdev] pb05 results for current llvm/dragonegg
On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 09:26:38AM +0200, Duncan Sands wrote:
> Hi Jack,
>
>> Attached are the Polyhedron 2005 benchmark results for current llvm/dragonegg svn
>> on x86_64-apple-darwin11 built against Xcode 4.3.2 and FSF gcc 4.6.3.
>
> thanks for the numbers. How does this compare to LLVM 3.0 - were there any
> regressions?
The results from just before
2011 Oct 08
4
[LLVMdev] dragonegg svn benchmarks
The Polyhedron 2005 benchmark results for dragonegg svn at r141492
using FSF gcc 4.6.2svn measured on x86_64-apple-darwin11 are listed below.
The benchmarks used the optimizaton flags...
-msse4 -ffast-math -funroll-loops -O3
in all cases. The use of -fplugin-arg-dragonegg-enable-gcc-optzns to allow
for autovectorization from the FSF gcc front-end only produces a single run-time
regression,
2012 Apr 03
2
[LLVMdev] pb05 results for current llvm/dragonegg
On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 08:33:33AM -0500, Hal Finkel wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 08:57:51 -0400
> Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 09:26:38AM +0200, Duncan Sands wrote:
> > > Hi Jack,
> > >
> > >> Attached are the Polyhedron 2005 benchmark results for current
> > >> llvm/dragonegg svn
2011 Oct 08
0
[LLVMdev] dragonegg svn benchmarks
Hi Jack,
> The Polyhedron 2005 benchmark results for dragonegg svn at r141492
> using FSF gcc 4.6.2svn measured on x86_64-apple-darwin11 are listed below.
> The benchmarks used the optimizaton flags...
>
> -msse4 -ffast-math -funroll-loops -O3
>
> in all cases. The use of -fplugin-arg-dragonegg-enable-gcc-optzns to allow
> for autovectorization from the FSF gcc
2011 Oct 12
0
[LLVMdev] dragonegg svn benchmarks
Hi Chris,
>> PS: With -fplugin-arg-dragonegg-enable-gcc-optzns the LLVM optimizers are run at
>> the following levels:
>>
>> Command line option LLVM optimizers run at
>> ------------------- ----------------------
>> -O1 tiny amount of optimization
>> -O2 or -O3 -O1
>> -O4 or -O5